The Daily News opinion blog

Main menu

Post navigation

Ninth Circuit: Sex Offenders Welcome Here!

Over the years, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has earned itself a reputation as the legal bastion of San Francisco looniness, and its latest decision will do nothing to change that.

On Tuesday, the court decided that Alberto Quintero-Salazar — a Mexican national and legal resident of the U.S. — could not be deported on the basis of a sex crime he committed in 1998, namely illegal intercourse between an adult over 21 and a youth under 16. According to the court, adults taking sexual advantage of minors (so long as they have the “consent” that minors are legally unable to provide) does not constitute the “vile, base or depraved” conduct that can subject legal U.S. residents to deportation.

The appeals court said a legal resident can be deported for committing a crime of “moral turpitude,” defined as a vile, base or depraved offense that violates society’s moral standards. That definition doesn’t fit the charge against Quintero, the court said.

Really? This comes as quite as a surprise. Because when a slew of Catholic priests were found to have committed essentially the same crime — “consensual” sex with teenagers — society seemed quite appropriately outraged. Indeed, the sexual abuse of minors was, I thought, about as clear an example of “moral turpitude” as there could be, an obvious violation of society’s moral standards — except, it seems, in San Francisco.

More from the Chronicle:

The state law he admitted violating prohibits sexual conduct that “may be unwise and socially unacceptable to many, but it is not inherently base, vile or depraved,” Judge Sidney Thomas said in the majority opinion. He noted that some conduct banned by the law would be legal if the adult and minor were married, and would also be legal in states where the age of consent to intercourse is younger than 16.

Oh yes, the “but it wouldn’t be illegal if it were legal!” defense. I believe the technical term for this is “asinine tautology.”

And finally, there’s this nugget:

He also said the purpose of the law was not to enforce society’s moral code but to reduce teenage pregnancies.

So much for the idea that the purpose of the law is to protect minors, to spare them from risks both emotional and physical for which they are unprepared. But apparently that’s not much of a concern among the Ninth Circuit, which is busy enforcing a moral code of its own.